< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 23 OF 23 ·
|Oct-03-17|| ||JimNorCal: "To my memory no-one that actually knew Tarrasch has ever described him as obnoxious."|
First of all, I heartily agree with <Poulsen>. It is, frankly, stupid as well as unfair to judge people from the past by the standards of today.
But, just to recount a bit of history, there is a story in Ray Keene's Nimzo book. As an up and coming player, Nimzo was granted an opportunity to play a serious game with Tarrasch. Several friends were onlookers. After a dozen or so moves, GM T remarked something to the effect of "I've never had such a won game as I have now". This disparagement really upset Nimzo (he was able to draw the game, btw).
So now we have two episodes. I'm still willing to consider Tarrasch a decent guy.
|Oct-03-17|| ||keypusher: <JimNorCal>
The Hastings tournament book on Tarrasch:
<Visitors to the Congress will remember him as a neat, well-dressed, sprightly gentleman of very engaging manners, and always with a fresh flower in his button-hole. Certainly a favorite with onlookers, his board was generally well patronized whoever was his opponent.>
<Like his great rival [Steinitz], he takes chess and life generally in a very serious way, and there seems to be little fun in either of their natures. If this means that humor is inimical to chess, so much the worse for the latter. On the other hand, however, there is Dr. Tarrasch, who has plenty of true humor in his nature, and Pillsbury and others are not wanting in that element. >
|Oct-03-17|| ||tamar: The nearest we have these days to Tarrasch is Kramnik, who also can be off-putting to some, but embodies the player/ teacher role when explaining his games.|
|Oct-03-17|| ||Petrosianic: Maybe, but it's kind of a rough analogy. Tarrasch was a writer, like Chernev, Reinfeld, Soltis or Pandolfini, but unlike those, he was also a world class GM. Tarrasch taught a whole generation through his books. Kramnik may be eloquent in post mortems, but he hasn't got a body of work like that that people can learn by.|
|Oct-03-17|| ||whiteshark: Other world-class players and 'prolific' writers that come to mind:|
past time: Lasker, Alekhine, Nimzowitsch, Reti, Tartakower,
Botvinnik, Bronstein, Keres, Euwe
(Gelfand, Ivan Sokolov)
|Oct-03-17|| ||Petrosianic: Yes, there are others, but I don't think Kramnik is in their league. Although maybe he could be if he took to serious writing.|
|Oct-04-17|| ||offramp: <whiteshark: Other world-class players and 'prolific' writers that come to mind:
past time: Lasker,>
Lasker prolific? I can think of two books: Lasker's Manual of Chess and the book about St Petersburg 1909. What have I missed?
<Alekhine, Nimzowitsch, Reti...>
I can only think of one book by Réti: Masters of the Chessboard. I suppose he might have been prolific in Czech.
<Tartakower,...Botvinnik, Bronstein, Keres...>
I must have missed the Keres books.
<Euwe...> I thought a lot of Euwe's writings were ghosted.
(Gelfand, Ivan Sokolov)>
Yussupov was a co-writer with Dvoretsky on some of his books.
I think Nunn is the top Grandmaster/writer, at least in English.
|Oct-04-17|| ||WorstPlayerEver: <offramp>
Lasker also wrote other books. One of them is named: "Kampf (1907)"
|Oct-04-17|| ||Straclonoor: <I must have missed the Keres books.>
Keres wrote a lot of books.
In my collection:
- '100 games'
- 'French defense'
- 'Opening enciclopedia' vol.1 (king's gambit etc.)
|Oct-04-17|| ||beatgiant: <offramp>
<I can only think of one book by Réti: Masters of the Chessboard. I suppose he might have been prolific in Czech.>
Make that two: he also wrote <Modern Ideas in Chess>.
<whiteshark> said <'prolific' writers>. Do only books count? Does two qualify for prolific, in scare quotes?
|Oct-04-17|| ||offramp: <WorstPlayerEver: <offramp>
Lasker also wrote other books. One of them is named: "Kampf (1907)"|
Yes. I remember Kampf now. It was translated into English as <Struggle> then made into a 1974 film starring Jim Nabors and Phyllis Diller called <G-g-g-g-g-Gollee>.
|Oct-04-17|| ||zanzibar: <Lasker prolific? I can think of two books: Lasker's Manual of Chess and the book about St Petersburg 1909. What have I missed?>|
Lasker also wrote a chess magazine for at least a couple of years, and was a chess editor for Pester Lloyd (sp?) for a spell.
|Oct-04-17|| ||zanzibar: Oh yeah, he also authored or co-authored a couple of tournament books, e.g. St. Petersburg (1909):|
* * * * *
And how about bridge?
<In 1930, Lasker was a special correspondent for Dutch and German newspapers reporting on the Culbertson-Buller bridge match during which he became a registered teacher of the Culbertson system. He became an expert bridge player, representing Germany at international events in the early 1930s, and wrote Das Bridgespiel ("The Game of Bridge") in 1931.>
|Oct-04-17|| ||john barleycorn: Lasker also wrote "Common Sense in Chess". His first chess book as far as I know.|
|Oct-04-17|| ||WorstPlayerEver: <zanzibar>
Thanks for the links!
Lasker is a great chess writer. I once had a book with copies from newspapers. It was printed very badly, I remember. But I enjoyed the stories. He also wrote chess fiction stories in those papers.
|Oct-04-17|| ||keypusher: For some of these people it wouldn't be a bad idea to include links to their public-domain books in their bio. Couple of bodice-rippers from Dr. Tarrasch: |
|Oct-04-17|| ||WorstPlayerEver: archive.org
There you can download old (chess) books which have no copyright.
|Oct-04-17|| ||whiteshark: D'oh! As non-native it seems that I've mixed it with <profiled>. ;)|
|Oct-06-17|| ||zanzibar: Here is Nimzowitsch himself talking about the animosity(*) between the two (forgive me if this has been quoted before):|
< Right now I'd like to say that if I didn't feel that enmity against Tarrasch, I wouldn't have really learned to play chess. To play stronger than Tarrasch - that was my desire during 1904-1906. And here's an advice for my readers: "If you wish to achieve results, choose a mortal enemy for yourself and try to dethrone him".
Though I think it's necessary to add: while my hostility towards Tarrasch was caused by personal motives, it wasn't fueled by them (we have never quarreled again since 1904), but rather by a deep ideological antagonism that I felt ever since we first met. I've always considered Tarrasch mediocre; yes, he was a very strong player, but all his views, sympathies and antipathies, and unability to create new thoughts - all that obviously proved the mediocrity of his personality. I've always loved genius, and I couldn't put up with the fact that the leader of a dominating school was a mediocre man! That fact exasperated me!>
There's actually a little more too:
(*) So, should I conclude that the animosity was mostly a fiction created by Nimzo as a motivational device?
|Oct-07-17|| ||Retireborn: I should say that the antagonism (though rather petty) was real enough, and Nimzowitsch's talk of a motivational device was just post facto self justification.|
|Oct-07-17|| ||WorstPlayerEver: Nimzo was funny, hard to understand for a cg member.|
|Oct-07-17|| ||JimNorCal: Just slightly earlier than the section quoted by zanzibar is this bit which explains how things got out of hand. |
"After move 10, Tarrasch, his arms folded, suddenly uttered the phrase, "Never before in my life did I have such a won position at move 10 as in this game!" I, nevertheless, managed to draw the game. But I couldn't forgive Tarrasch for this public "humiliation" for a long time."
|Oct-07-17|| ||perfidious: <offramp....I think Nunn is the top Grandmaster/writer, at least in English.>|
One more vote for the good doctor; his writing style is erudite, clear and all round excellent--any player could learn from him.
|Oct-07-17|| ||offramp: User: whiteshark Okay. No problem. I responded to an error so let's forget about it.|
|Oct-07-17|| ||WorstPlayerEver: <perfidious>
Yeah, his best work is probably 'My 60 Memorable Games'
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 23 OF 23 ·